"A self-styled form of Darwinian fundamentalism has risen to some prominence in a variety of fields, from the English biological heartland of John Maynard Smith to the uncompromising ideology (albeit in graceful prose) of his compatriot Richard Dawkins, to the equally narrow and more ponderous writing of the American philosopher Daniel Dennett . . . . - Stephen Jay Gould, "Darwinian Fundamentalism," The New York Review of Books.

Wednesday, April 12, 2006

NY Times Reports on Study That Establishes That Intelligent Design Is Falsifiable

The NY Times has this article of last week, reporting on a study that establishes that intelligent design is falsifiable:

Dr. Thornton said the experiment refutes the notion of "irreducible complexity" put forward by Michael J. Behe, a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University.

This was one of the key arguments that opponents used to claim that intelligent design was not science. Of course, we do not need this study to show that ID is falsifiable. The obvious way to falsify ID claims is to show an evolutionary pathway that could plausibly lead to the biological system that is alleged to be irreducibly complex. Then it comes down to evaluating which is more plausible.

Michael Behe's comments on the experiment and why it does not, in fact, falsify intelligent design or irreducible complexity can be found here.

Actually the argument for macro-evolution not being science is that macro-evolution isn't science. (It's really just another one of those quirky religious cults that pop up overnight like graffiti on the pages of history - e.g. the priests of Baal that Elijah had such fun with in I Kings 18)

It's a bit like how a dog isn't a cat or a banana isn't a small, off-duty Czechoslovakian traffic warden. (unless of course the macro-myth is true after all)

See? Science is science, until it starts stomping through the hallowed halls of philosophy. Silly ideas about magic matter making stuff for reasons never fully explained isn't.

About Me

I am a macroevolution agnostic. I used to accept evolutionary theory. Then I looked at the evidence.
It became clear to me that macroevolutionary theory is built more on a priori philosophical assumptions than on evidence. Microevolution, on the other hand, is supported by the evidence. The distinction between the two is critical and is largely ignored, or not understood, by the mainstream media and general public.